Hi Amit, Thanks for reviewing these two patches.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 6:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is what I also understood after reading this thread. So, my > question is why not just review v3 and commit something on those lines > even though it would take a bit more time. It is possible that if we > decide to go with v5, we can make it happen earlier, but later when we > try to get v3, the code committed as part of v5 might not be of any > use or if it is useful, then in which cases? > Yes, approach #2 (v3) would be generally better than approach #1 (v5) in performance. I started with approach #1 because it is much easier. If we decide to go with approach #2, I think we can now concentrate on v3 patch. For v3 patch, we have some other idea, which is to perform a normal grouping sets aggregation in the final phase, with 'GroupingSetId' included in the group keys (as described in the previous email). With this idea, we can avoid a lot of hacky codes in current v3 patch. Thanks Richard
